It’s hardly a secret that women vote more liberal and Democrat than do men. Even married women, while voting less liberal than their unmarried cohort, retain the sex disparity in vote preference. A study has found that suffrage moved the country inexorably to the left, and it hasn’t stopped moving in the degenerate direction since.
CH proposed a biological mechanism that follows from an understanding of the sexual market to explain the greater liberalism of women. As the resource-exploiting sex, women are neurally charged to extract support and transfer provisions from men to themselves to see them through the tough times of pregnancy and the raising of small children. To aid them in this purpose, women have evolved an innate (if subtly shifting) warmth for men who can provide for them and who show it through romantic displays of fidelity.
But when women become self-supporting, either by their own financial independence or via government largesse (which is in practice the redistribution of beta male resources to women), then the limbic impulses that help them connect with beta providers become short-circuited and redirected to charming cads and government growth. The cad serves the pile driver need while the sugar daddio big government serves the provider need. Under this arrangement, women can indeed “have it all”, (except for long-term commitment from men, which loses its incentive structure in this beta-bypass system).
Therefore, the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.
All’s fair in souls and shivs, but this may be only part of the story of women’s infantile harm-based liberalism. The political and economic liberalism of women coexists with a greater female tendency to collectivism and religious feeling. Oddly, women appear to be both more liberal and more conservative than men, at least when the metrics used for comparison are sliced thinner. (And the hamster went wheeee….)
Researchers have (re)discovered that boys are slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails and girls are sugar and spice and everything nice.
Can disgust sensitivity help explain why women tend to be more collectivistic?
The researchers sought to examine why women are more likely than men to endorse the socially conservative attitudes of collectivism and religious fundamentalism. Both attitudes encourage cooperation with one’s own social group and the shunning of outsiders.
Women on average tend to adhere to social and religious norms, and practice within-group reciprocity more than their male counterparts.
So… women are conformist lemmings who get the vapors when someone dissents from the party line. Never woulda guessed.
“Females are more likely to exhibit forms of social conservatism that involve ingroup cohesion and outgroup avoidance (e.g., collectivism)…”
White women, in particular, are assiduous about dating within their race. SWPL chicks may chant kumbaya, but their revealed dating preferences say “white is right”.
Across four separate studies, the researcher found that those who were more easily disgusted and more afraid of contamination were more likely to be both female and socially conservative. The four studies were comprised of 980 undergraduate students in total.
The link between disgust and conservativism is bolstered by previous studies. […]
But why do women tend to be more easily disgusted than men? The researchers think this can be attributed to evolution.
Men and women are both vulnerable to pathogens in the environment. However, the sexes face a distinct imbalance when it comes to reproduction. Women must bear approximately 9 months of pregnancy, while men’s “initial investment can be as little as the amount of time that it takes for copulation,” the researcher explained.
Women therefore have more to lose from mating with a bad partner. They also need to avoid exposing their gestating offspring to pathogens. Women with heightened feelings of disgust would have been more likely to avoid sickly mates and keep their fetus healthy, and consequentially more likely to pass on their genes.
Makes sense. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, pathogens were a much greater threat than they are today in the age of penicillin and indoor plumbing. Disgust and its concomitant moral rationale evolved because it increased the chances of one’s survival, and the survival of one’s children.
Women’s heightened feeling of disgust also explains the quickness with which they resort to labeling men they don’t want to have sex with as “creeps”.
Disgust, in turn, encourages “the preference of ingroup members over outgroup members, because outgroup members pose a greater disease threat,” the researchers wrote. This preference towards members of one’s own group manifests itself as socially conservative attitudes, like religious fundamentalism.
“In other words, disgust sensitivity prepares individuals to have a negative perception of others who may be a source of contamination and to avoid them.”
If women feel more disgust, why do they vote more liberal? The conundrum is solved if you don’t conflate “collectivism” and “conservatism”. The two are very different moral outlooks. Collectivists have strong liberal tendencies, such as wealth redistribution and PC policing. Conformism, too, is today more a trait of liberals than of non-liberals.
What about social liberalism? Aren’t women on the whole more socially liberal than men? First, SWPL women are not all women. For example, support for abortion restrictions runs about dead even between men and women nationally, but I’m sure you’d find that in the baby-less blue cities, pro-abortion is the default position among women.
Second, social liberalism can accommodate collectivism (or vice versa). If the prevailing view of “your tribe” is that gay marriage is doubleplusgood, then you’ll happily parrot newspeak if it means strengthening in-group cohesion. And you’ll do this even if your sex possesses a lower disgust threshold.
Jonathan Haidt has theorized that disgust/sanctity is one of five moral foundations, of which ideological conservatives weigh more heavily than do liberals. I think there is evidence based on women’s greater propensity to feel disgust to question Haidt’s categorization. The disgust reflex apparently acts to amplify women’s social liberalism, possibly by providing emotional justification for repurposing feelings of disgust against ideological outsiders. If this is happening, as I suspect it is, then natural female disgust is, in the modern context, less a behavioral adaptation to infectious disease than it is protection against “infectious ideological opponents”.
The analysis gets more complicated when race is added to the mix. Black women are liberal, but their liberalism is driven by different moral and self-interested motivations than that which drives white women. The question left unanswered is whether the disgust reflex is universally higher among women or if it varies in intensity between the races.
Finally, we can predict that liberalism is ascendent and will continue its cultural ascent in lockstep with generationally decreasing testosterone levels, because lower testosterone among men putatively translates to stronger feelings of (ideological) disgust in men (akin to what women feel), and a stronger predilection toward feminine collectivism and equalist conformism.
In other words, the world is becoming more womanly and scalzied. Those who hope for a return to reason and common sense may first need to figure a way to re-inflate the sad shriveled sacks of the manlets of the West.